IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

THURSDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 4TH ASWINA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 6794 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:

M/S. BRIDGE MOTORS LLP, AZHINHILAM, FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA PIN 673 632, REP.BY ITS CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER, MR. K.S.SUBRAMANIAN BY ADVS.

DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.

ANWAR SADATH VADAKENGARA SMINI JOSE RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM PIN-676505. (AS THE AUTHORITY FOR REVISION UNDER KBT ACT).

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FOR TIRUR DIVISION OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101.

(AS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER KBT ACT).

4 TAHSILDAR,FOR KONDOTTY TALUK, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-673638.

(AS ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER KBT ACT).

5 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, REVENUE (SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001.

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the completion of assessment, in respect of a building belonging to the petitioner, under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The short point raised by the petitioner is that though the building of the petitioner is not liable to building tax under the Act on account of the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(b) of the Act and such contention was taken before the authorities, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected without referring the matter to the Government as contemplated by Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader referred to the orders issued by the authorities and attempted to establish that the claim for exemption has been duly considered by the authorities. However, there is nothing in the impugned orders which would suggest that the claim of the petitioner was referred to the Government as contemplated by the provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act.

4. In that view of the matter, I have no option, but to set aside the impugned orders and remit the assessment of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act to the files of the 4th respondent, who shall pass fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after referring the claim raised by the petitioner for exemption to the Government as contemplated by the provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act.

Accordingly, Exts.P3, P5 and P11 orders are quashed and the 4^th respondent is directed to complete the assessment afresh under the provisions of the Act, in respect of the building in question, after referring the claim of the petitioner for exemption to the Government as contemplated by the provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ajt APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6794/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE NUMBER K3/397/2016 DATED

5.3.2016 BY THE TAHSILDAR/ASSESSING OFFICER OF KONDOTTY TALUK THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6.4.2016 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 5.4.2017 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 30.7.2017 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.10.2018 BY 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.8.2019 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.9.2019 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATI